Wikipedia:Peer review/Alan Keyes/archive1
Nominated on Article of the Week but removed as clearly not a stub. However, there were the following comments: -- ALoan (Talk) 19:39, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- This nomination blatantly violates the rule that nominated articles should be nonexistent or stubs. I nominate it anyway because Keyes is in a contested U.S. Senate race, and the article on his opponent, Barack Obama, is being featured. On Talk:Barack Obama, several people have expressed concern about the appearance of partisanship on the part of Wikipedia. I think it would be advisable for us to feature the article on Obama's opponent, and a period of intense review seems to be the best way to make sure it's worthy of being featured in its own right, not just for the sake of balance. JamesMLane 16:26, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- If you know it violates the guidelines, then why nominate it here? List it at peer review or FAC. - Taxman 19:02, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
- This is clearly not an appropriate article for AotW. From a quick skim of Alan Keyes, it looks close to being ready for Wikipedia:featured article candidates, so why not nominate it there instead? Alternatively, Wikipedia:peer review would give it some polish if it needs some. Barack Obama managed to get featured without being an AotW. (And before I am accused of partisanship, I am in the UK and know next to nothing about either of the gentlemen concerned: however, just because one of them has a featured article does not mean that the other has to as well.) -- ALoan (Talk) 17:43, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- The only expansion it needs is in the areas of his UN service, Maryland Senate runs, and possibly presidential runs. Unfortunately, these are the areas I'm least equipped to research, at least w/o finding a decent biography of him--and school starts soon, so I doubt I'd have time anyway. Anybody? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:10, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)
- Also the intro mentions his distinguished foreign service. That needs to be made NPOV, either by adding objective mentions of what made it distinguished, or removing the word distinguished. The mention of buying office supplies, etc in the post nomination section seems a little un-encyclopedic. It could just be said: "while preparing a campaign office and preparing his campaign, his conservatives stances ...". - Taxman 22:14, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
- This nomination blatantly violates the rule that nominated articles should be nonexistent or stubs. I nominate it anyway because Keyes is in a contested U.S. Senate race, and the article on his opponent, Barack Obama, is being featured. On Talk:Barack Obama, several people have expressed concern about the appearance of partisanship on the part of Wikipedia. I think it would be advisable for us to feature the article on Obama's opponent, and a period of intense review seems to be the best way to make sure it's worthy of being featured in its own right, not just for the sake of balance. JamesMLane 16:26, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)